My training methods are very similiar to how you described. Now i don't have to post them!

Quote:

I also wanted to say, my dog is a very free spirit siberian husky, who is very catlike, and often does not want to do things for me. So I think I am biased that way, however I've trained her very well with positive reinforcement, can't force this dog into anything! I am planning on getting her CD in May.

Yes my first dog was a siberian and you can't force them to do anything! I tried with a choker and it just didnt work... whenever she was out of my reach she would do whatever she wanted.
I discovered the clicker with her and was able to teach her all the basic behaviours and even a few tricks thrown in!

Quote:

I also wanted to comment that when a dog displays what we view as aggression, really what they are doing is displaying conflict resolution behaviour. They are using their body language to show that they are uncomfortable for whatever reason (aggression has many causes) and are asking for space. Correcting this, in my opinion, is not a valid option. You WANT the dog to show these signs, otherwise you get a dog who will strike without warning. When you correct a dog who is displaying aggression you are either creating more negative associations with whatever the dog has issues with, or towards the handler, OR punishing the dog for using their natural language. You are not addressing the root of the problem, which is probably that the dog is afraid, uncomfortable, guarding, or perhaps doesn't know how to communicate properly. In my opinion, a better technique than correcting the "aggressive" behaviour, is to figure out why the dog is displaying this language, and correct the root of the dog's issues by counter-conditioning (changing the association of the stimulus from negtive to positive) and desensitizing (getting the dog slowly used to the stimulus, gradually, starting from a point they feel comfortable).

Thank you so much for this... I love how you describe that correcting signs of aggression does not solve the root of the problem but only creates a dog that will strike without warning... and that it adds additional stress. This is so true. When I was younger one of my dogs was fear aggressive and he would nip at peoples heels. I used to correct him for growling and eventually he stops growling but still nipped!

I have defiantely used non positive methods at times to train. Sometimes it just seems easier to tell your dog NO when he barks(for instance)... its relieves your frusteration and it stops the barking for a minute. But this supression is like a bandaid... eventually it falls off. It is a much better idea to figure out why the dog is barking and come up with a solution that teaches the dog alternatives to barking and when it can bark.

Maui: Absolutley. I agree with this, especially desensitization. I very much believe that changing something negative into something positive for the dog is incredibly important, and yet with that said; in MY vocabulary - that IS correcting the behavior.
Correcting bad behavior does not have to be accomplished in a negative light, which I'm getting the impression that some here believe the term is used to imply.
When I am viewed with a dog displaying (lets say insecure aggression) I'm going to innterupt the behavior shown before it escalates into a dangerous situation. Watching the dogs body language allows me to anticipate it's actions before it carrys through with something. Dogs are constantly uttering warnings, like you said. Their brain signals sends their body into various poses which tell us so much.
By innteruption, I will step into the dog, occasionally making vocal sounds to get the dogs attention back on me. The goal is to keep the dogs brain from being unable to stay focused on whatever stimuli will trigger it's actions; to keep the mind and body calm. You do not need treats or constant rewards to accomplish that, or keep the dogs focus on you.
A dog does not naturally WANT to be in control of situations. And theres a difference between a dog being naturally more dominant than others, and being the leader of a pack (feeling the need to lead, or control). A dog that feels it needs to remain in control of the situation all the time, is completley stressed out - high energy - rarely calm or at peace - constantly buzzing. Aggression many times comes from this place as well; when the owners have lacked leadership and control, failing to understand what the dog is really telling them.

For those of you that treat train, could I hear some experiences of you successfully training a red-zone aggression from a dog? I'm honestly quite curious and would like to know how you carry out your methods.

Thank you Bailey for this. You have expressed perfectly and I could not have said this better.

With all the red zone dogs that I have received I could never ever get them to respond to treats/toys...never. I absolutely had to check them in order to get them to focus on me and once they did I would touch under their chin - that was their reward...and they knew I was pleased with their reaction - that was enough for them. Also, I would like to say that this is ALWAYS work in progress with red zone dogs. One can never be 100% comfortable - you must always be aler and always read the dogs body, signals and to feel the dog through the leash. Being an owner of one for 11 years, I could never say the old "I know my dog 100%" as no one does even with dogs that do not exhibit certain undesired behaviour - heck we don't even know ourselves 100% so how can you know an animal?

The importance of this thread is the comparison between two different behaviouralist or trainers. One does work with red zone dogs or dogs that are more difficult and the other deals more with people and dogs that he deems as 'salvageable' however will quickly discard those that he feels are not. Personally, I would want someone like Caeser to mentor me as he truly has insight and does not easily through in the towl as the other. We may not like or agree with all his methods but surely he does provide some ideas. I have had incredible success with one of his methods for insecure dogs. It has worked for me every single time and I am very pleased.

The importance of this thread is the comparison between two different behaviouralist or trainers. One does work with red zone dogs or dogs that are more difficult and the other deals more with people and dogs that he deems as 'salvageable' however will quickly discard those that he feels are not. Personally, I would want someone like Caeser to mentor me as he truly has insight and does not easily through in the towl as the other. We may not like or agree with all his methods but surely he does provide some ideas. I have had incredible success with one of his methods for insecure dogs. It has worked for me every single time and I am very pleased.

In reference to your comment on Brad's training and easily throwing in the towel, what are you referring to? I've been in his training classes, and I don't see that at all, if anything the exact opposite. He's very dedicated to his clients, and has told us multiple times that if we ever needed his help, even after we were done with classes, to let him know. Yeah he's got a busy schedule with the show and everything else he's working on, but he's always been there if we had a question for him. He has fired clients in the past (not many, but there are a couple), but he would only resort to that if they were blatantly not following what he was recommending them to do, and it was sabotaging the training, and/or making it worse. Not much you can do in a case like that though.

In reference to your comment on Brad's training and easily throwing in the towel, what are you referring to? I've been in his training classes, and I don't see that at all, if anything the exact opposite. He's very dedicated to his clients, and has told us multiple times that if we ever needed his help, even after we were done with classes, to let him know. Yeah he's got a busy schedule with the show and everything else he's working on, but he's always been there if we had a question for him. He has fired clients in the past (not many, but there are a couple), but he would only resort to that if they were blatantly not following what he was recommending them to do, and it was sabotaging the training, and/or making it worse. Not much you can do in a case like that though.

I'd also like to add that Brad does in fact deal with red-zone dogs, and has rescued many from a sentence of euthinasia. He also travelled with a team to Katrina and saved many dogs, rehoming them and rehabilitating them. Many people don't get to see this side of him, judging what he does stricly by his tv show which focuses his work on your average home family pet.

__________________
~B~
"If you are a dog and your owner suggests that you wear a sweater. . . suggest that he wear a tail."

I'd also like to add that Brad does in fact deal with red-zone dogs, and has rescued many from a sentence of euthinasia. He also travelled with a team to Katrina and saved many dogs, rehoming them and rehabilitating them. Many people don't get to see this side of him, judging what he does stricly by his tv show which focuses his work on your average home family pet.

Well that is good to know - he should show that side of himself. He just has a stinky way of talking to people. If he ever told me to 'give him 20' - I would give him 20 alright.

Part of being a good trainer is not lecturing them military style. It is a huge turn off. Being straight forward is one thing, being down right ignorant and idiotic is another. He needs some serious 'bed side manner'.

Yikes. I haven't seen this episode. Do you remember what the premise of the show was about? What breed of dog it was?

The dog was a mix shep husky or malamute I believe. It's been a while. He had the dog by the collar on it's two legs. He knew the dog was problematic yet challenged the dog right away without trying to establish somesort of relationship with the dog. He did not like what the dog was doing and just walked up to it right away. He deserved the reaction that he got from a red zone dog. He really should have known better.

Well that is good to know - he should show that side of himself. He just has a stinky way of talking to people. If he ever told me to 'give him 20' - I would give him 20 alright.

Part of being a good trainer is not lecturing them military style. It is a huge turn off. Being straight forward is one thing, being down right ignorant and idiotic is another. He needs some serious 'bed side manner'.

Yes, I agree. He's quite forward with people and I've seen him hurt more than one feeling. I think it works for him, simply because he's not doing his job to 'make friends'. He's there to help the owners with the dogs and get things done in a timely fashion. I've also seen a very sincere side of Brad too - and while I personally don't think his snappy and sarcastic comments are always needed; he's also aware of when he's crossed a line and is not slow to apologize to a person when he realizes his own mistake.

__________________
~B~
"If you are a dog and your owner suggests that you wear a sweater. . . suggest that he wear a tail."

Yes, I agree. He's quite forward with people and I've seen him hurt more than one feeling. I think it works for him, simply because he's not doing his job to 'make friends'. He's there to help the owners with the dogs and get things done in a timely fashion. I've also seen a very sincere side of Brad too - and while I personally don't think his snappy and sarcastic comments are always needed; he's also aware of when he's crossed a line and is not slow to apologize to a person when he realizes his own mistake.

Sorry Bailey but with my character, this guy would be short of 3 very important pieces of equipment. He would be talking with a very high pitch from that day forward.

Alright, the episode you were talking about was the Everest episode I believe. The dog was aggressive, and had already bit one of the children in the face. The family was a single mom, and two kids, the oldest was about 10 I think (the one that was bit). Because mom works, the oldest was watching little sister, and taking care of some of the responsibility of walking this dog, obviously over his head, considering the aggression problems.

Now, nowhere in this episode did they say Everest went to a shelter, or was euthanized, or whatever else always is "assumed" about this episode. They said that Everest was leaving THIS FAMILY so he could be evaluated behaviourally. Do you honestly think that it would have been the right decision for this dog to stay in this family that did not have the right tools to train him properly, and continue to have the kids in danger of being bitten?

C'mon...

This does not mean Brad gave up on this dog, this means that for this family, the dog was removed, and the family got another dog more suitable to what they could provide. The moral of the story for this episode...be careful when selecting your new family member so that you are able to provide the necessary training, exercise, etc. They ended up with a smaller dog, that the family could handle better. Do you honestly think that the "right" way to handle it for this episode would have been to help this family train this dog and rehabilitate him? Not very realistic...and while Brad may have been working with Everest off the air, the episode was about this family getting the right pet for them, which is what the rest of it was about.

As for Everest, I'm not sure what happened to him. I asked Brad once, but he has privacy rules in place for these families so that he can't reveal information like that (yeah yeah, go ahead, say whatever you want, about how convenient that is, but I'm guessing the families would beg to differ). But if this dog had already bitten a child, and continued to be aggressive, it's possible that he could have been put down, but it's also possible that he could have been placed with a family with experience in handling something like this. So for you to say that Brad "threw in the towel" is really inaccurate here. Sorry but it bothers me that people make that generalization about Brad because of this episode without really watching to see what it's really about.

Oh, and the dog up in the air was the dogs reaction to Brad evaluating his level of aggression and dominance. He started a pinning exercise (I think), and the dog got up on his hind legs to challenge him, Brad didn't lift him up to stare him down or whatever everyone "assumes" about that part of it.

Hehe you are just as entitled to your opinion as I am, I just get frustrated when people make the wrong assumptions about something. You're welcome to have your opinions about Brad's personality in general, he knows exactly what kind of persona he puts forth, he just doesn't care if people thinks he's a jerk (sometimes ). He knows what he's there for, and that's the well being of the dog.

I'm not offended, just trying to express that in that example you cited, he didn't throw in the towel, and again, I get frustrated when people assume that he gave up on that dog when that's not the way it happened.

In fact, I've been pretty impressed with the back and forth going on lately in this thread, I've learned a few things , which is never a bad thing.

Oh, and I think it's safe to say that we all have a little goofball bigmouth idiot in us sometimes. I do anyway! (wait did I say that out loud)

I don't think anyone's disputing the fact that Everest shouldn't have been in the home he was in on the episode. But a follow-up episode on the dog himself, excluding the family, and what became of him would have been interesting to see. I'd have been impressed if Brad was able to work with and turn the dog around, or turned him over to someone who could, and had shown the dog rehabilitated. Then, the rumor mills would have been put to rest and no more wild speculation on what the dog's fate was. Once the dog was removed from the family, what's the privacy issue?
I and many others remain underwhelmed by him.

personally I prefer Ian dunbar's method of training, the only thing I agree with Ceasar with is exercise, discipline, affection. Honestly I have tried watching Brad's show, like Benmax, the guy is a total turn off ( training wise) for me.

That's one thing I never liked about brads show, never a follow up on the animal just a cut scene at the end about how the dog is now perfect... The show comes off as over edited which adds drama but takes away from what it is suppose to be about, dogs and their trainings/behaviors. I also don't like how whenever brad is with the dogs they do not look comfortable at all.
At least on Cesar's show they will show complete scenes without cutting in and out showing what is going on. If something happens it shows it, he gets bitten, a fight breaks out, etc.
Also if he does get bitten he says its his fault he provoked it by trying too much, attempting to do something at the wrong time or wasn't careful, where as when Brad provokes a dog its the dog's fault that it tries to bite him... hmm
I wish I could see the episode with Everest but season 2 on the website only starts at episode 14 and its episode 13 I think.
But I did see the episode with the aggressive Blue Heeler (Season 1 epi 7 on IMDB, epi 8 on the network site online video) which was dog aggressive and territorial and Brad brought his dog right into the yard with the dog, and the dog came towards his dog, he stood in between to block, which did nothing the dog started to just go between his legs so he slapped it in the face which did nothing, the dog still attacked his dog...obviously. So this dog charges and jumps on his dog which is on its turf and then you see him grab the dog by the collar, pull it about 20 feet while raised on its hind legs giving it a couple shakes, then sit it down take off his sunglasses and yell in its face "you do not do that to (dogs name) you want to get aggressive and violent ? " and a cut scene happens.
Completely setting the dog up for failure, he knew the dog would attack, I knew the dog would attack, the family knew the dog would attack.. and what happened it attacked, and it got smacked in the face, hauled around and yelled at in its face... hmm
Teaches people watching a good way to deal with their dog aggressive dog, let it attack and then choke, shake and yell at it... seems like adding fuel to the fire does it not?
If you try and deal with an animal while you are stressed yourself it'n not going to listen to you.

They ended up with a smaller dog, that the family could handle better.

I watched this episode, and while it wasn't really mentioned what happened to the dog it was hinted, IMO, that it was taken to a shelter. I agree that his way of handling it was off. I also think that the dog shoulnd't have stayed with that family.

However, I also disagree that he allowed them to get a puppy! A single mom, 2 kids under 10....who has time to potty train/kennel train/TRAIN at all!??? I think that brad should have suggested they rescue a dog that was already kennel trained, had basic manners, and was house trained.

Also, the idea that getting rid of a 'problem dog' and immediately getting a new puppy is ok appalls me. ESPECIALLY since brad always touts responsibility and that pets aren't disposable.

I think what should have happened was that Brad took that dog, saying what would be happening to it (shelter, PTS, rehabilitated/rehomed, ect), then he should have left them for a while to plan and think about what went wrong and do some research. Put a time stamp (ie, 3 months later) and helped them find an older calmer trained dog that would fit their family better. Then SHOW what happened to Everest! that would show people that someone else always has to deal with that dog that gets thrown away. Maybe even do a shelter tour or something.

I think there have been some good points made about that particular episode....but we have to remember...this is a tv show.

Brad Pattison has very little say about what is told and seen on the show. He does his thing, and the Slice Network Producers do theirs. They are the ones that make, edit, and have him narrate. I think these suggestions/comments should be directed to their website, because I do think that some valid points have been made.

__________________
~B~
"If you are a dog and your owner suggests that you wear a sweater. . . suggest that he wear a tail."

then he should have left them for a while to plan and think about what went wrong and do some research. Put a time stamp (ie, 3 months later) and helped them find an older calmer trained dog that would fit their family better. Then SHOW what happened to Everest! that would show people that someone else always has to deal with that dog that gets thrown away. Maybe even do a shelter tour or something.

I was just disappointed with that episode in general, honestly.

That's exactly what he did. Infact as I clearly remember he made the family wait 3 months and during that time he gave them a list of things to consider.

Everest was a shelter dog. The family did not want to go that route again for obvious reasons. Frankly I can't blame them. I have had similar experience with adopting. I picked a dog from a rescue (she was 3 yrs old) and it was not clear to me that she was dog aggressive. I brought her home, took her for a walk and she nearly pulled my arm off when she saw another dog and went after it. Let's just say that this issue was never brought to my attention when adopting her and the rescue was a "reputable" one. I called them and was told to bring her back. Well after some thought I decided that she really did not deserve to go back to those people and we worked through the issues. Now granted, I am a single woman and live on my own. Had I had children this would have been a different story. I would never put a child in danger of being bitten just because of my own ego.

That dog IMO should have never been in that family. Clearly the shelter did not do their work in matching the dog to the right family. This was a puppy, but personally I would be asking A LOT of questions (if I were the shelter) before adopting a large breed puppy with an unknown family lineage, to a single parent who works.

With the family's previous experience with shelter dogs, it was clearly not a route for them to go.

I think going with a small breed puppy was a much better idea. The family went breeder searching and found a breeder that was responsible. Having gone this route myself I can say that my experience was much better. All of my current dogs came from breeders.

I think there have been some good points made about that particular episode....but we have to remember...this is a tv show.

This is the most important part to me. It IS a TV show. A show that is specifically directed towards people with difficult animals. Because it is so public they should be setting a good example, showing the work that does go into it.

I work as a trainer and I can't tell you how many people come in with "I saw this on the dog whisperer...." or "I saw this on that show with the brad guy who trains dogs..." Or some variation of that. That is the issue I have. The show may say 'consult a behaviorist' but ultimately this show is about Brad/Caesar training animals. What they put out there is information for the public to use as they will. What they put out represents them and what they do, therefore they should be held responsible for what the show ultimately turn out to be. Regardless of the spin put on it by producers it represents them and each and every piece needs to be something they can stand behind.

As for the family not going for another shelter dog. There have been numerous episodes where Caesar has helped someone find a dog. Why couldn't brad have done the same? Why couldn't he have found a few dogs HE thought would be a good fit, and give them as suggestions/examples of the dog they should be looking for. I do not think that purchasing a puppy (who was from a BYB if anything, btw) was the right decision for a mom who was already overwhelmed.

Again, something I see everyday. mom comes in with 1+ kids in tow, usually young, sometimes with another on the way with her new puppy. She's exasperated, the kids are grabbing things off every shelf, and mums trying to keep the baby from pulling puppy's hair as the dog pees on the floor. I suggest training and they say "Sorry, i don't have time."
2-5 months later mum realizes she has a problem because the dog has no manners, and STILL isn't anywhere near potty trained. They come in, come to maybe one class then end up getting a refund because, surprise surprise, they ended up rehoming the dog. Usually due to 'allergies'. Right. I've seen it 1 too many times to be OK with that option for any mum with little kids.

Yes, in the right home it could work. In general you either end up with a dog with no manners in classes at 6-9 months who snaps at anything that moves because it hasn't been out of the house, let alone socialized. Or the dog is given up because mum has realized she doesn't have time to train/pay attention to yet another baby. This happens whether there are two parents or not, btw. I'm not picking on single mums at all.

IMHO the correct way to add a dog would be BEFORE there are kids. have the dog until it's approx 1-2 and has learned the basics, then plan for baby. I know that's not always possible, but the other option is waiting until the youngest child is old enough to understand that puppies aren't actually for yanking/tugging/or whacking on the head. *shrugs* It just seems to work out better for the families that plan this way. Again, just what I've noticed.

I think that they DO a great job about setting an example for the time they have allotted and the points that they want to get across. Sure, maybe not everything we'd like to see is always shown, but again - tv show - on Slice Network for crying out loud. This is not National Geographic or Biography, we're talking about here.

I also have MANY clients that come to me saying : "I've been trying this thing that Ceaser does," or "I've been working on the same thing that Brad does," and yet when I have them explain to me how they're carrying these methods out - it's obvious that it's being done wrong. Not only because of the wrong body signals the owner is giving the dog while attempting to carry out a certain method, but because they have not previously consulted a proffessional. They have watched something they have seen on tv, and whether or not people want to believe it - the actual method carried out is not always explained in full detail to the viewers - therefore, how can we expect to know EXACTLY whats happening when we are not physically there, or previously instructed step-by-step?

I watch the Chop Shop on the Slice Network, but you don't see me attempting to cut hair do you? (And whoo boy, I would feel bad for my client if I did! )

If someone carries out a training method they've seen on tv with bad results, then it is absolutley no ones fault but the owners. Both Ceaser and Brad make it clear that owners MUST consult a proffesional (as you pointed out) in order to correctly work with their dogs behavior.

I also highly disagree that the best time to get a dog is BEFORE children. (As a trainer, I'm not sure where you got that information?) Often times a dogs behavior can change for the worse when a new baby is introduced into a family; and if they do not consult for help previous to the childs arrival in the home - this can cause unneeded jealousy and a dog struggling to figure out pack heiarchy again, which obviously leads to a dangerous situation or a depressed/anxious dog that will act out in various ways.
I absolutley reccomend a dog to come AFTER all family members are in place in the home. If the dog comes before the baby, then it would be important to know how to carry out steps for the dog at the time the baby comes home.
And as a mother with a nine-month old baby and a five month old puppy (notice - dog came shortly after baby, yes I have my hands full haha) we have taught Kiley from the moment she was aware of the puppy to 'be gentle' and vice versa. I also believe that it's absolutley good for the dog to be tugged and touched all over its body, to desensitize any reaction from the dog in later years towards children. With that said, I do believe it's in the responsibility of the owners to ensure that their child also knows how to respect a dog and to treat it with kindness.

Attached Images

__________________
~B~
"If you are a dog and your owner suggests that you wear a sweater. . . suggest that he wear a tail."

I just have to say that I like Caesar’s last message after an episode.
'Support your rescues and shelters, and don't forget to spay and neuter'. POWERFUL!!!!!
I have yet to hear anything so positive come from the 'other one'.

I agree whole heartedly. Caesar has done a lot of good for dogs and their people as much and the critics try and deny it. He is a huge advocate for spay/neuter and he states several times on many episodes the importance it plays in reducing sexual/hormonal aggression issues which is one of the big call in's for vets/behaviorists. He advocates shelters and rescues and insists to make a smart pet choice with your head not your heart, and if you can’t then find someone or somewhere who can make a good decision for you based on what you can provide.

I think the biggest reason and claim to the Dog Whisperer show popularity is not the things Caesar does physically, but what he says. He presents clearly the most obvious mistake people make that causes their dogs to be monsters. We anthropomorphize our dogs to a horrendous extent. For all the people who say that watching the show helps so much is not because they learned how to do a perfect correction, but the fact that they started treating their dog as what it is, a dog, not a baby, or a little person. to an extent the people who cannot achieve success with their dogs cannot separate this quality in their minds; their dog is their baby and not a dog. One of the worst cases of this was with the woman who loved her dog so much she would let it attack her son and then protect the dog for it instead of disciplining.
The main point of the show is that your dog is a dog, treat him like a dog, and give him what a dog NEEDS not what a person likes. He doesn’t say you can’t love your dog and have it as your baby just that you have to make sure to fulfill its needs as a dog first and then fulfill your needs as a human.

The Dog Whisperer always has a disclaimer to not try what you see on the show, I have watched At the End of my Leash off the full videos on the Slice site and never saw the same warning. Eventhough I do agree if people are dumb enough to try things on their own without getting training on it that is their own faul but still for legality sake they should announce not to try it.

I agree - Ceaser does a great job of representing the importance of being a stable OWNER for your dog - not it's "mother".

And I think essentially that's really important for all of us to take home...whether you believe in Brad or Ceaser or someone else, the importance to be the best leader you can be for your pet is what counts.

__________________
~B~
"If you are a dog and your owner suggests that you wear a sweater. . . suggest that he wear a tail."

What is wrong with "mothering" your dogs? My mother made sure I had good manners, made sure I aquired skills I needed to live a good healthy life, saw to it that I had recreational opportunities, supported anything I was interested in, provided love, shelter, good food, etc, etc. How is that different from raising a good dog? Dispariging motherhood is done by tiny little "men" who never grew up and feel the need to blame someone else for everything wrong in their lives. Yup, blame the women and slap the dogs into submission.

What is wrong with "mothering" your dogs? My mother made sure I had good manners, made sure I aquired skills I needed to live a good healthy life, saw to it that I had recreational opportunities, supported anything I was interested in, provided love, shelter, good food, etc, etc. How is that different from raising a good dog? Dispariging motherhood is done by tiny little "men" who never grew up and feel the need to blame someone else for everything wrong in their lives. Yup, blame the women and slap the dogs into submission.

What wrong with it? Well you did not give birth to that dog.... that's what's wrong.

Have you ever read Adam's Task: Calling Animals by name by Vicki Hearne?

She was of the same opinion as Brad and she certainly was not a tiny man!

What is wrong with "mothering" your dogs? My mother made sure I had good manners, made sure I acquired skills I needed to live a good healthy life, saw to it that I had recreational opportunities, supported anything I was interested in, provided love, shelter, good food, etc, etc. How is that different from raising a good dog? Disparaging motherhood is done by tiny little "men" who never grew up and feel the need to blame someone else for everything wrong in their lives. Yup, blame the women and slap the dogs into submission.

We should not “mother” our dogs because dogs don't "mother" their puppies the way that human mothers "mother" their children.
Human beings have a different life history pattern, social structure, interactions, communication and care base. Also remember that the complete anatomy and brain structure between dogs and humans is wholly different. Human beings have highly advanced frontal brain lobe allowing us infinite capacity to think ahead, behind, problem solve and strategize. The development of this huge brain and its capacity produces a helpless offspring which is slow to develop physically and mentally. We typically produce one single offspring and provide it undivided care and attention, we incubate our offspring longer and are forced to carry them around constantly for around first 5 years of their lives because we have lost the hair, and they have lost they post natal strength to physically support themselves like our primate cousins. Also remember that it has not been for long in our evolution that we have been sedentary animals who establish a home range, we are still in the early evolutionary stages of branching from nomadic hunter gatherers.
Dogs produce a large litter of offspring who are also born defenceless but develop very quickly. They stem from pack based carnivores whose ancestors have a strict home base that is strictly patrolled. Their young are also born helpless but their defined territory allows the young to remain enclosed in a den site for the first weeks of their lives while they are provided the care they need to develop. The mother does not provide individual care and attention to each puppy she does not have aspirations for each individual, all the puppies are raised them as a group unit. In dogs and many other mammals the weak are commonly not encouraged but instead nature plays its course and the weak do not survive, sometimes poorly individuals are discouraged from survival at the benefit of the stronger, to construct the strongest pack unit, or in the case of dogs who live in a looser pack unit then wolf cousins simply the strong win out while the weak succumb. Mother dogs do not follow the care of their offspring after a certain point they are essentially cut loose to fend for themselves among the others and they have to find their place.
I have no idea how the conclusion was drawn that by saying to not mother dogs as if they were children has anything to do with the idea of “Disparaging motherhood is done by tiny little "men"” who “blame the women and slap the dogs into submission”. Remember for thousands of years dogs have lived beside men not with them as scavengers and hunting tools. It has only been the past few hundred years that people have begun incorporating dogs into the human family unit, it is a relatively new concept that we are still running trial and error with for the most part. Because for many years the knowledge of dog’s physiology was pretty dim people would try and “break” dogs similar to how horses use to be broken, using violence and physical overpowering, because they did not know how to overpower the mind.
Just providing a dog with food, water, housing, and activities does not necessarily make a balanced dog they require ongoing discipline and structure. You can’t just tell a dog what to do you have to show it they do not communicate in words they know you by how you smell and the projection you put forth of your own level of self confidence. I have no doubt in what Caesar says that animals of any species will follow the wisest, most confident and calm leader who can be entrusted to bring safety and tranquility to the family unit.
As much as we try to treat dogs like humans in hopes of getting back the human type affection we desire, they will still treat us in the only way they know how, which is like a dog.